Montana’s legal landscape for high school athletics has undergone a significant transformation, as exemplified by the recent case of Zayne Hert. A decision by the Montana Supreme Court has sparked a new dialogue about the rights of student-athletes and the processes governing their eligibility. This ruling arrives in the wake of Hert’s struggle with academic eligibility due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which derailed his high school basketball career.
Hert, who faced academic challenges during remote learning, found himself ineligible to play basketball during his sophomore year. As he approached his senior season, his family sought permission for him to participate as a fifth-year senior, attributing the delay to pandemic-related disruptions. Initially, school officials seemed supportive. However, the Montana High School Association (MHSA), which oversees extracurricular activities in the state, denied the waiver, adhering to its rules without providing a written explanation.
When Hert’s case was brought before Rosebud County District Court Judge Rennie L. Wittman, the decision was upheld. By the time the legal proceedings began, Hert had already graduated, rendering the case moot. Judge Wittman emphasized that the law could not retroactively allow Hert to play his final season.
The Montana Supreme Court, however, saw Hert’s appeal as an opportunity to address broader issues. Former Montana Supreme Court Justice James Nelson had earlier cautioned against the repetitive cycle of moot cases, highlighting the need for judicial intervention. His warnings from 2002 about unresolved legal issues due to the mootness doctrine have finally prompted a change.
In a unanimous ruling, the Montana Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision and introduced new standards for challenging MHSA rulings before graduation renders cases moot. Justice Ingrid Gustafson, writing for the court, underscored that MHSA’s involvement with public schools aligns it closely enough to be treated as a public agency. This means students’ rights to participate in such activities are constitutionally protected, tied to their educational rights and due process.
The court’s opinion stated, “We further hold that Montana students have constitutional protections in participation in offered extracurricular activities, that the District Court erred by reducing that constitutional right to a privilege or a contractual interest, and that the MHSA failed to provide (Hert) with constitutionally sufficient due process when it failed to provide notice of the issue, evidence, and timely written notice of its determination sufficient for judicial review by a court.”
The ruling mandates that MHSA must now provide a clear record of its decisions, offering transparency for students and parents and allowing for judicial review. The court criticized MHSA’s lack of documentation regarding Hert’s case, which left him disadvantaged in seeking legal recourse.
“Because the MHSA provided no written record regarding the reasons for its determination, (Hert) was essentially forced to fly blind when seeking judicial review of the MHSA’s decision,” the court observed. “The MHSA’s actions in this case clearly fall short of the due process required to those MHSA determines are ineligible to participate in extracurricular activities.”
Although Hert has since graduated, the court clarified that the issue remains relevant, suggesting that future athletes may benefit from the new framework established for appeals. The decision emphasizes procedural due process, requiring MHSA to offer notice of key decisions, an opportunity for students to be heard, and a record for judicial review.
Three Procedural Requirements for MHSA
- Notice when key issues or cases are being decided.
- An opportunity for students to be heard.
- A record and written decision that will allow a court to review a case.
Justice Jim Rice, in a concurring opinion, challenged the notion of MHSA as a purely private entity, arguing that its close ties to public schools make it a state actor subject to constitutional due process requirements. He noted, “Here, the MHSA mirrors the (Tennessee association) in material respects, including that there is the kind of ‘pervasive entwinement’ with the State of Montana sufficient to treat the MHSA as a state actor.”
The Montana Supreme Court’s decision marks a pivotal moment in ensuring due process and clarifying student-athletes’ rights in Montana, setting a precedent that could influence similar cases nationwide.
